If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Quick question:
Sun released version 28 under CDDL, so people can use it. Oracle is now at 30+, which has encryption and stuff, will those features ever be released to the public or are we stuck with version 28? Will there be any kind of fork to develope parallel to Oracle?

Comment

Quick question:
Sun released version 28 under CDDL, so people can use it. Oracle is now at 30+, which has encryption and stuff, will those features ever be released to the public or are we stuck with version 28? Will there be any kind of fork to develope parallel to Oracle?

Comment

Quick question:
Sun released version 28 under CDDL, so people can use it. Oracle is now at 30+, which has encryption and stuff, will those features ever be released to the public or are we stuck with version 28? Will there be any kind of fork to develope parallel to Oracle?

Actually, even FreeBSD ZFS and OpenIndiana ZFS are incompatibles due to parallel developments...

Comment

ZFS is a losing proposition. The only thing it offers is compatibility with existing ZFS systems for data recovery purposes. Since that will never happen, it would be a lot better to simply forget about it and put all that development resource into enhancing a more viable filesystem, like BTRFS.

Anything ZFS leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I sure as hell would never use it.

Comment

ZFS is a losing proposition. The only thing it offers is compatibility with existing ZFS systems for data recovery purposes. Since that will never happen, it would be a lot better to simply forget about it and put all that development resource into enhancing a more viable filesystem, like BTRFS.

Anything ZFS leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I sure as hell would never use it.

Why not? I've been using it on production systems where I work for years. It's a fine filesystem, and I trust my data on it. I can't (yet) say that about BTRFS.

The only real problem with it on Linux is a matter of licensing. I've been running a ZFS pool on my home desktop with ZFS-on-Linux for a while and it seems reliable, although I'm not brave enough to deploy it in production yet.

Comment

ZFS is a losing proposition. The only thing it offers is compatibility with existing ZFS systems for data recovery purposes. Since that will never happen, it would be a lot better to simply forget about it and put all that development resource into enhancing a more viable filesystem, like BTRFS.

Anything ZFS leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I sure as hell would never use it.

As one of the people who contributes to ZFSOnLinux development, I can say the same about btrfs.

Comment

Quick question:
Sun released version 28 under CDDL, so people can use it. Oracle is now at 30+, which has encryption and stuff, will those features ever be released to the public or are we stuck with version 28? Will there be any kind of fork to develope parallel to Oracle?

Solaris is now closed so the Oracle development won't be public (well, except when the code gets anonymously dumped on the internet). The Illumos project (OpenIndiana, Nexenta, etc. -- the OpenSolaris forks) will continue development of the public, open Solaris.

My understanding is that all the original Solaris devs are focusing on Illumos now... and none of them work at Oracle anymore.

Comment

As one of the people who contributes to ZFSOnLinux development, I can say the same about btrfs.

You see, btrfs has made it to mainline. ZFS will never do that - tell "thanks" to guys from Sun for their strange license. The difference? You can see it at post above my. Btrfs will work by default in many distros. ZFS will not. And it will be PITA to use it. So it about to lose their grounds as btrfs improves (and looking on commits to btrfs I can admin it's quite impressive job).